Re: Issue 501 closed

I think so.  There were 2 other area that were not considered relevant 
which they're not adopting.

Martin Duerst wrote:

> Should we have a short call tomorrow (today for most of you) to
> discuss how to answer this message?
> 
> Regards,    Martin.
> 
> 
> At 08:31 04/09/22 -0700, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> 
>> Dear Andrea and I18WSTF,
>>
>> You raised an issue, 501[1] regarding the SOAP Resource Representation
>> Header specification[2]. Please note that this issue covers the first 4
>> points in your e-mail[3]. The XMLP working group considered your points
>> and has the following response:
>>
>> Points 1-3: Yes, when using the resource representation header base64 is
>> always a requirement, even for textual types. The SOAP envelope itself
>> will always be in a single character encoding. The octet stream
>> resulting from decoding some base64 text may well be in a different
>> character encoding. This is not an issue. The character encoding in use
>> for such data may be determined in a number of ways, including, but not
>> limited to; specifying the charset as part of the xmime:contentType
>> attribute (e.g. text/xml; charset=iso-8859-1 ), examining the XML
>> declaration for XML based types (e.g. <?xml version='1.0'
>> encoding='iso-8859-1' ?>, using the algorithm defined in Appendix F of
>> the XML 1.0 Recommendation for XML based types, assuming a default
>> character encoding defined by the specification of the media type.
>>
>> Point 4: xml:lang is not appropriate for use on the rep:Data element as
>> base64 is not human-readable text. A SOAP message can carry multiple
>> instances of the resource representation header and many such headers
>> may carry representations of the same resource. Thus a given SOAP
>> message could carry multiple representations of a given resource, each
>> one in a different human readable language. The resource representation
>> header has an extensibility mechanism that allows additional attributes
>> to be specified. Such an attribute could be defined to indicate the
>> human readable language of a text based resource. We note that there is
>> an example of how to use this extensibility mechanism in Section
>> 4.4.3[5] of the CR version of the Resource Representation SOAP Header
>> Block specification[4]
>>
>> The working group does not expect to change the Resprentation header
>> specification as a result of closing this issue.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Martin Gudgin
>> Microsoft Corp.
>> For the XML Protocol Working Group
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-cr-issues.html#x501
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-soap12-rep-20040608/
>> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2004Sep/0000.html
>> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-soap12-rep-20040826/
>> [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-soap12-rep-20040826/#rep-http-headers
> 
> 

-- 
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the
intelligent are full of doubt. -Bertrand Russell, philosopher,
mathematician, author (1872-1970)
[...shouldn't that end with "or maybe not?"]

Received on Thursday, 23 September 2004 18:26:36 UTC